Morning journal and courier., 1887-08-13
The Contracts fer the New A1mshou.e.

The Contracts fer the New AImshouse. To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 If the people of New Haven were to be- come intelligently acquainted with the call | for bids and the actual bids for the aims
 house contract they would one and all ex- l press themselves in a manner that could not I be misunderstood in favor of the New Haven contractors.
 The call was for the particular branches of work separately or the whole combined, which comprised the mason work, carpenter work, painting, plumbing and heating.
 Messrs. Tracey Bros first bid was for the first three parts complete, viz: Mason work, carpenter work and painting. The amount was $162, 800, which was lower than any three combined of the lowest bidders of these separate trades. If Messrs. Tracy Bros had rested their bidding with this they might then have rightfully claimed the con tract. But they appear to have feared to trust themselves with the one bid and at. tempted to ''hedGe,' so to speak, by making still another and by reason of this second bid were thrown out, or rather found to be high CT than three of the New Haven contractors. Their second bid agreed to do the carpenter work and painting for $63, 900. It appears their purpose was in this second bid that III 
 work should be found to be too high, they could ignore the mason part of it and claim the carpenter and painting work if they should prove to be the lower in these branch es. Their original bid was $162, 800 less this second bid of S63,000 and would lead the committee to suppose that the mason con- tract part of it was $500. This by itself was the lowest of any mason builder and the majority of the committee take the ground that upon the mason builder qualifying h1m- self they will give him the mason contract at the price as made by the division in the sec end bid, and if Tracey Bros. are the lowest on the other two branches, as they separated them, then they are entitled to that part.
 The second view of it shows that the New Haven carpenters bid for their respective trades only and that three of them had hand ed in figures which combined with the low est bid for painting by E. R. Jeffcott were lower than the Tracey Brothers. They were as follows: c. D. Loveland s61, ,090, or $1 ,910 less than the Traceys'; D. H. Clarke $60, 1883, or 2,617 less than the Traceys'; Larkins & Langley $59, ,567, or s3.433 less than the Traceys', and se20 lower than any other. Consequently none of the others had made but one bid they awarded the bid to the lowest special bidders, Lar kins & Langley and E. R. Jeffcott, and were also ready to offer the mason work to the Waterbury mason, but Tracey Bros. would not present his name separately. They then awarded the mason contract to the lowest mason builder, G. M. Grant. The writer is not a practical builder, but it would appear upon the face of these true statements that the first mentioned parties had attempted double play and instead of the charge being true "that the committee have not awarded to the lowest bidder" if one will add the mason bid of Tracey Brothers, $99. 800, to the carpenter and painter bid of Larkins & Lang- ley and FER. Jeffcott, S59,567, it will be seen that they have the lowest figures of any,viz: S159, ,O67 or $3, 433 less than the TraceyBros'. combined bid M